OMNIBUS TRAFFIC.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 213, 8 September 1926, Page 11

OMNIBUS TRAFFIC.

A DIFFICULT PROBLEM. ATTORNEY-GENERAL ON THE BILL. OPPOSITIONISTS SUPPORT MEASURE ißy Telegraph. — Parliamentary Reporter.' WELLINGTON. Tuesday. "Sonic of the committee's proposals are left out." interjected Mr. V. H. Potter (Roskilll in the House to-night. when the Hon. F. J. Rolleston wa s explaining the provisions of the Motor Omnibus Traffic Bill during the second readinu debate.

The Minister agreed that was co, and went on to explain the clauses, stating that tie districts were fixed and settle*, on when the 'm- regulations wore gazetted.

Power was given by Order-in-Council to abolish, alter, or constitute new districts. Two classes of licenses were contemplated—one for municipal service* and the other for municipal buses.

Sir Joseph Ward: Who are the Ik-ens iiuthorities?

The Minister replied that they \\ere appointed hy the Minister of Internal Affairs, and must be the council or board of a borough or county council. There was a complete right of appeal against any aot of the licensing authority.

Regarding provision enabling residents to petition for transport services, the Attorney-General stated that if 50 people signed a petition it did not necessarily follow the transport authority would have to initiate a service. On the petition being received, the matter would oe investigated hy tlie licensing authority and forwarded to the Transport Appeal Board, who would also inquire into it and make recommendations with regard to the difference between the provisions of the bill and the committee's recommendations.

The chief feature was that some of tne measures which it had been suggested should be dealt with by regulation had been embodied in the bill. Mr. J. A. Lee (Auckland East) : Where are the penalties? Mr. Rolleston said that penalties were provided. To Prevent Abuse. In respect to the extra fare which a bus was compelled to charge when carrying passengers over a route already served by the trams, it was provided in the bill that the bus must charjre at least twopence more than the ordinary fare oharjred on the tram. In order to prevent any abuse of this or any avoidance 01 the intention of the clause, the stipulation was made to refer to within a quartei of a mile of the terminus. This would prevent a bus. startins. *ay, I*lo yards behind the tram stop and savins that it was not running over the =ame route as the tram. It had not been possible to arranye the insurance clauses of the bill so quickly, but this would be negotiated lietween the parties later.

Continuing. Mr. Rolleston that no provision had been made for the metropolitan district of Auckland, as had been suggested by the committee, because this had been impossible in the time.

Mr. P. Fraser: There is likely to be a commission necessary to inquire into all the local bodies in Auckland.

Mr. Rolleston: That is so. and tln= commission could sro into this at the same time. The legislation "had been drafted in a harry. Mr. Rolleston said, but this had been unavoidable. He hopeo it would be the solution of what was admittedly ""a most difficult problem."

The member for Waitemata (Mr. A. Harris) made a vigorous attack on the Government in connection with Takapuna transport, and was severely taken to task by the Minister, as reported in another column.

The reader of the Opposition said that the private bus could not be allowed to embark on destructive competition with the public tramway or bus service. The Labour party gave the bill support because it was a step towards what the party stood for.

Mr. D. C. Sullivan I Avon) supported the bill generally, hut hoped that justice would be done to the people who had been rendering services to the public, but who would be prejudiced by the bill.

Sir John Luke (Wellington North) refuted a suggestion that the adoption of the universal long-distance fare by the Wellington tramways had been dictated Ity fear of bus competition. This was incorrect, because the city's trams since their inception had put £337.000 into extensions out of earnings, and the net profit last year was £12.700.

Mr. J. MeCombs- (Lyttelton) said that in the case of Christchureh. for instance, the tramways had done a great deal to create residential areae round the city. Public Not Protected. Mr. V. H. Potter contended the whole of the committee's recommendation: should have been adopted. It was described l>y the Minister as an important bill, yet the people concerned in the operation" of the Act were completely disregarded, as they had no chance of protesting against the bill's provisions. The bill should, iij all fairness, be postponed until next session, as there was no real urgency for its passage. The bill was a disgrace", and would be a disgrace if brought in by the Labour party, which was saying a pood deal.

Sir Joseph Ward said lie was glad the Government had introduced the° bill to supersede regulations which had been issued by Order-in-Council. Still, ht regretted that the bill had not been before the people long enough to enable the public to become acquainted with it. There ought to be an independent licensing authority, and the appointment of an appeal board did not help matters very much. Nor did he think it a fair business proposition that bus owners selling cheir vehicles to a city council should not be able to obtain some goodwill, because the city council was going to get the benefit of the business they had created. At a late hour the second reading was carried. Takapuna Amendments. Notice of several amendments to the bill has been given by the member for •Vaitemata, Mr. A. Harris. He to make the bill operative in No. 2 licensing district (Takapuna Borough) on June 1, 102 V. instead of November 1. 1920. ,-md to make the licensing year >»nd on May 31 instead of March 31. The f.vopence extra fare is to be deleted, but bus fares are not to be less than the corresponding trim fares. Buses run by public authorities, which term includes tramway companies, as distinct from local authorities, are not to be exempt from the insurance requirements. Proposed New Clauses. New clauses .are proposed: fa) Directing that the Governor-General in Council shall prescribe the tares and freights to be charged by owners of motor buses in competition with or in opposition to the railways. Such charges

j are to be at least 25 per cent more . than the corresponding railway charges; (b) providing that a bus service running in two or more licensed districts shall be licensed only by .the authority of the district in which its headquarters are situated and shall be treated as established solely in that district; (c) providing that nothing in 1 the bill shall apply to the Takapuna district after November 1. 1027. unless by that date the Takapuna Tramways and Ferry Company lias electrified it s ! tramway =y?tem.